Audit recommendation usage

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description usefully discloses the return contents (utilisation, missed recommendations, unexpected tools) and the key limitation that cross-server calls are invisible. However, annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so the call has side effects, and the description never says what is written or stored during the audit — a notable gap for a non-read-only tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the comparison action, then the outputs, then the one operational caveat. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the returned artefacts, and the key input constraint. Missing only side-effect disclosure for the non-read-only annotation and any hint about the nested priorities parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

It explains why executed_tools is mandatory and implies recommended_tools can be omitted in favour of stored recommendations, which adds real meaning beyond the schema. It says nothing about the nested priorities object or about how task_id ties to systemone_decide_tools beyond what the schema already documents; with 75% schema coverage, this is baseline-level.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: compares recommended tools against reported executed tools and returns utilisation, missed recommendations, and unexpected tools. This clearly separates it from siblings like systemone_decide_tools or systemone_recommend_skills, though it never names the alternative explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied as a post-execution audit step and the description gives one hard constraint (the execution list must be supplied because the server cannot observe other MCP servers). It does not say when to prefer this over evaluate_result or what prerequisite call produces the task_id in prose, so guidance is adequate but incomplete.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.